Truth is King.

Marriage

March 18, 2013

Ryan T. Anderson with The Heritage Foundation has a great piece on marriage. For those looking for a thoughtful white paper from a traditional marriage supporter on what marriage is and why it is important to prevent its redefinition, this is a great piece for you:

At the heart of the current debates about same-sex marriage are three crucial questions: What is marriage, why does marriage matter for public policy, and what would be the consequences of redefining marriage to exclude sexual complementarity?

Marriage exists to bring a man and a woman together as husband and wife to be father and mother to any children their union produces. It is based on the anthropological truth that men and women are different and complementary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the social reality that children need both a mother and a father. Marriage predates government. It is the fundamental building block of all human civilization. Marriage has public purposes that transcend its private purposes. This is why 41 states, with good reason, affirm that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Government recognizes marriage because it is an institution that benefits society in a way that no other relationship does. Marriage is society’s least restrictive means of ensuring the well-being of children. State recognition of marriage protects children by encouraging men and women to commit to each other and take responsibility for their children. While respecting everyone’s liberty, government rightly recognizes, protects, and promotes marriage as the ideal institution for childbearing and childrearing.

Promoting marriage does not ban any type of relationship: Adults are free to make choices about their relationships, and they do not need government sanction or license to do so. All Americans have the freedom to live as they choose, but no one has a right to redefine marriage for everyone else.

In recent decades, marriage has been weakened by a revisionist view that is more about adults’ desires than children’s needs. This reduces marriage to a system to approve emotional bonds or distribute legal privileges.

March 07, 2013

As I've debated so-called same-sex "marriage" over the years I have come across well meaning moderate friends who don't necessarily want to completely redefine marriage but are open to "civil unions".

I've mentioned on those occasions that, among a long list of problems with granting special privileges for people based on their sexual preferences, Leftist advocates will use this appeasement by marriage moderates against them.

In that brief the Obama administration argues that because California recognizes domestic partnerships and civil unions but refuses to give marriage licenses to same-sex couples, the State of California is discriminating against same-sex couples and should be forced to recognize so-called same-sex "marriage" (SCOTUS blog backs me up). In federal district court openly homosexual Judge Vaughn Walker gave basically the same argument when he ruled against marriage.

California gave "GLBT" activists almost everything they wanted. All the rights of marriage short of the name? You got it. Public recognition? You got it. But when California balked at changing the definition of what marriage is, their herculean works of appeasement were used as weapons against them, both in federal court under openly homosexual Judge Vaughn Walker and again by the Obama Administration.

Support for creating special rights based on sexual preferences of any kind is a gift in the Left's war on marriage. You cannot be pro-"civil unions" and pro-marriage. If marriage is to be protected, creating these sorts of legal structures meant for compromise with "GLBT" activists must be avoided. As the Obama Administration and Judge Walker have shown us: Marriage moderates will be punished.

December 19, 2012

When I heard the report that a WISH/Ball State poll found that 54% of Hoosiers oppose the Marriage Amendment and 53% support decriminalizing marijuana I immediately knew something wasn't right. This is Indiana. Mitt Romney won by double digits even though Hoosiers weren't that excited about him.

When you look at the fine print of the poll (page 22), you find the truth. They over-polled liberals big time. 45% of those they polled were Democrats. Only 41% were Republican. Even worse, 60% were moderates or liberals. Only 32% were Conservatives. That is not an accurate representation of Indiana.

It's a shame that WISH TV 8 and Ball State are paying for this sort of propaganda. A donation to Indiana Inequality wouldn't have even been as valuable to the Left as free propaganda from the mouthpieces of the "mainstream" media and a state university. If WISH TV and Ball State really want to be seen as honest brokers in the community they should immediately apologize and admit that this poll is a fraud.

I wonder if tax dollars were involved in this mess...to be continued...

August 17, 2012

Scary stuff. As the state affiliate of the Family Research Council, please say an extra prayer for those of us who believe in God's design for marriage and family. Someone who disagrees with our public policy positions literally took up arms against one of our own in an attempt silence those who stand up for traditional family values.

Floyd Corkins shot Leo Johnson, the building operations manager of FRC, Wednesday after stating his opposition to FRC's policy positions and attempting to enter the FRC office. The police and FRC President Tony Perkins are calling Leo a hero as the gunman had 50 rounds of ammunition in his backpack and could have killed many members of FRC if not for Leo the Hero wrestling the gun away from the shooter after Leo sustained a gunshot wound.

In addition to the rounds of ammunition, Corkins had 15 chick-fil-a sandwiches in his backpack. As FRC President Tony Perkins mentions in the video below, as the Leftist media and traditional marriage opponents freaked out over Chick-fil-A CEO Dan Cathy's correct assertion that God's design for marriage is the best, media have mentioned that Chick-fil-A has donated to FRC (only $1,000 years ago, according to Tony in the video) and that FRC is a certified "hate-group" according to the Southern Poverty Law Center.

While it is a good start that a coalition of 25 gay rights groups released a through GLAAD condemning the shooting, I agree wholeheartedly with Tony that these groups should take the next step and pressure their friends at the Southern Poverty Law Center to remove the "hate-group" label from FRC and others in the pro-family community who hate no one and only wish to make the country a better place for families and the next generation.

The sad irony is that true hate was on display Wednesday by the gunman/"GLBT" group volunteer. FRC has never displayed hate and has only love for their fellow man, including those who disagree with them. The Leftists at the Southern Poverty Law Center and other "GLBT" groups who have called FRC and others "hate groups" dangerously label disagreement over policy issues as "hatred" towards those who claim a homosexual identity. It is possible to disagree with someone and not hate them. FRC stands for traditional marriage. That doesn't mean they hate homosexuals. The fact that the Southern Poverty Law Center and others confuse the two is wrong and should be remedied immediately.

The Indianapolis City-County Council is set to approve "Domestic Partnership" Ordinance 213 this Monday at 7pm. Yesterday on the Greg Garrison radio show, prompted by an IFI question, Mayor Ballard revealed that he is still undecided on whether he will approve this ordinance or Veto it. The final decision rests with him.

We do not alert you to issues like these and ask you to take action if we do not believe you can make a difference on the outcome. Here are 2 things that you can do that could decide whether this ordinance is passed into law or defeated:

1. RIGHT NOW - Call Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard's office (317-327-3601). There will be a nice lady who will answer your call and will take a message for you to share with the Mayor. Respectfully urge the Mayor to VETO Domestic Partnership Ordinance 213. They only take calls from 9am - 5pm, so call now.

2. Please join us at the hearing on Monday at 7pm so the City-County Council members understand that there are a significant number of Hoosiers who respectfully disagree with them on this issue (it looks as if the Democrat led Council will pass this by a vote of 20-9). Here is the address:

Indianapolis Marion County Building 200 East Washington StIndianapolis, IN 46204

*You can respond to this email if you would like to attend the hearing with IFI or have any questions.

What would this ordinance do?

Proposed Domestic Partnership Ordinance 213 would create a legal entity somewhat similar to a marriage license called a "Declaration of Domestic Partnership". Currently the City of Indianapolis uses taxpayer dollars to include the spouse and children of city employees into the benefits package. This ordinance would create a competing legal entity to marriage, "Declaration of Domestic Partnership," for those heterosexual couples who choose not to marry and homosexual couples who cannot legally marry, so that their significant others would also get these taxpayer benefits.

Why would this be a problem?

"Domestic Partnerships" will not appease homosexual activists...it will only give them greater leverage in their effort to overturn marriage laws and silence those who disagree with them. Militant Leftist homosexual activists around the country have attempted (with some success) to convince elected officials that granting some of the legal benefits of marriage to homosexual couples is the equitable thing to do (whether through "domestic partnerships", "civil unions" or other legal creations).

California is a great example why this is a mistake. In California, elected officials attempted to appease these homosexual activists by passing a statewide "domestic partnership" law. Were these activists satisfied with these legislative victories? No. In their efforts to overturn the definition of marriage as one man/one woman in California, same-sex marriage supporters claimed that "domestic partnerships" were "discriminatory", "stigmatized gays and lesbians" and turned "gays and lesbians" into "second, third or even fourth class citizens" (Perry v. Schwarzenegger). They took the olive branch of "domestic partnerships" and beat marriage supporters over the head with it.

The City of Indianapolis doesn't have the money. There are competing reports that the City of Indianapolis will finish 2012 anywhere from $30 - $70 million over budget. Cuts to public safety are not off the table. The fiscal analysis of this ordinance estimates that the domestic partnership ordinance would cost at least $200,000 a year. However, we believe it will cost significantly more. Possibly as much as $1 million per year or more annually. This is not a time for pork barrel spending. This is a time for fiscal responsibility.

Domestic Partnership Ordinance 213 is not really about benefits...it's about government promoting homosexuality through the law. The fact of the matter is that there are only a handful of homosexual City of Indianapolis employees that would even qualify for these additional benefits and even the "GLBT" community admits that same-sex couples have higher per-capita income than their heterosexual counterparts. This ordinance is simply not needed. So why are the Democrats in the Indianapolis City-County Council (with Councilor Angela Mansfield leading the charge) pushing this so hard? Because the homosexual advocacy groups that helped them get elected want this badly. Not because of the taxpayer dollars they will receive, but because of the message it sends. Their goal is not "equality," it is convincing (or forcing if need be) the American public that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. Through this ordinance it will be the public policy of the City of Indianapolis that there is no difference between married husband and wife relationships, cohabiting man/woman relationships outside of marriage or two men who have a sexual relationship together. The City of Indianapolis is prepared to shift from a child centric, marriage model for rewarding workers with benefits to an individual sexual preference model where two men shacking up is the moral equivaliant to a lifelong commitment between husband and wife. This public pronouncement will make it more likely that the Chick-fil-A's of the world will continue to be attacked, not less. After all, it is precisely Dan Cathy's understanding that not all sexual preferences are equal, and in fact, that some sexual preferences are flat out wrong, that led to the Mayors of Chicago and Boston promising to illegally bar Chick-fil-A from opening stores in those cities. Don't be fooled. That can happen here.

We have have created a special facebook page to pass along information about this ordinance:

This proposal would create a legal entity called a "domestic partnership" which is intended to mirror marriage. The goal is a repeat of what we have seen in other states where these "domestic partnerships" are created and then used in an attempt to overturn state marriage laws.

This will add hundreds of thousands of dollars in new spending to a city that is in fiscal crisis, according to the fiscal the city has worked up (we believe it will cost more in the $500,000 dollar range with fraud and abuse causing it to possibly rise higher in the future):

The Rules Committe is expected to vote the domestic partnership ordinance (213) through on July 10th and the full Indianapolis City-County Council is expected to approve it July 16. Our only realistic hope in defeating this ordinance is sharing our opposition to the Mayor's office.

May 25, 2012

On the heels of President Obama voicing his support for same-sex marriage and a lawsuit here in Indiana seeking to overturn our marriage laws, I was asked to debate marriage and family policies with an IU Sociology Professor and a representative of the Center for Inquiry at the Bloomington NPR affiliate on the IU campus. Needless to say, I was the only traditional marriage supporter in the room and the callers were generally against me.

However, I believe conservatives must take our message into hostile territory. We have the truth on our side. Increasingly Americans are separating themselves based on worldview. Where we live, work, what we watch and listen to. God's design for marriage and family is important. If Christians who hold to Biblical truth are not willing to take the message of truth and hope into these areas, who will?

May 09, 2012

What an interesting week for the Left's ongoing attack on civil marriage. Let's recap:

1. North Carolina passed their marriage amendment and became the 31st state to protect marriage and religious liberty. They did so by a 61%-39% margin. That's a blow out. They accomplished this while everyone from Bill Clinton to Joe Biden came out against them and Leftist groups consistently lied, as they have done in state after state, about what the marriage amendment would actually do. In state after state they throw out anything they can think of that might scare someone, and in state after state their horrible terribles are all false.

The talking heads and Leftist elites are trying to sell American's a lie. Thankfully Americans are not buying it.

Here is the lie: "The American people are becoming more supportive of same-sex marriage."

No...the Left wants Americans to be more supportive of same-sex marriage. When given the chance to support marriage, Americans have supported marriage in every state.

However, this is not really about who can get married or how they can get married. The real issue is the Left's attack on marriage laws and religious liberty. In the few places where same-sex couples around the world have been given the opportunity to marry, very few of them have taken advantage of that opportunity.

If they are not really wanting marriage, what do they want?

The answer is power and the ability to silence opponents. In state after state that has enacted even a portion of the Left's agenda against marriage, the real change that has occurred is that opponents of homosexuality and a secularizing of America have come under legal attack.

The Alliance Defense Fund has had to represent businesses, individuals, churches and others who have had their freedoms violated due to the attacks of the Left. From a bed and breakfast owner in Illinois being sued for refusing to allow a homosexual couple to shack up in his house, to a church who stood by Biblical teachings and wouldn't allow a same-sex marriage ceremony on church grounds, real civil liberties are under attack by the Left.

Americans are realizing that the "same-sex marriage" debate is not about marriage at all...it's about silencing them and robbing them of their liberties. They are showing up in mass to protect the liberties and values that have made this nation great and I predict they will continue to do so.